Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Pratibha Singh And Ors. And Kamla ... vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 11 September, 2007
Bench: Chief Justice, Sushma Shrivastava
ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. The cause of action and the relief claimed in the two writ petitions being one and the same, the two petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Kamla Nehru Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Satna (for short 'the College') is affiliated to the Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa (for short 'the University'). The College started B.Ed. course in the year 1972 and the University recognized the College from 23.9.1972. After the enactment of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the B.Ed. course of the petitioner was required to be recognized by the National Council for Teach Education (NCTE). Initially, NCTE gave permission for admission to as many as 150 students in B.Ed. course of the college in 1995, but thereafter when another institution known as Chitrakoot Vishwavidyalaya applied for B.Ed. course, the NCTE (Western Zone Committee) while allowing the Chitrakoot Vishwavidyalaya an intake capacity of 60 seats, reduced the intake capacity of the college to 60 seats by order dated 4.4.1997. Admissions to B.Ed. course in the State of Madhya Pradesh is regulated by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh (for short 'the Board'). For the academic year 2006, the Board allotted 100 students on the basis of the merit to the College and pursuant to said allotment, 100 students were admitted to the College for the B.Ed. course for 2006-07. The College intimated the University about the admission of the 100 students and requested the University to issue 100 forms for the B.Ed. examination to be held in June, 2007 and the University by its letter dated 22.12.2006 issued 100 forms. Out of the 100 students, two students did not fill up the forms and the remaining forms duly filled by the students were sent to the University alongwith the requisite fee on 19.1.2007. The University issued roll numbers and admit cards to the College to be distributed to the students. The students took B.Ed. examination as per the time table during the period 5th June, 2007 to 8th June, 2007. Thereafter, the University, by its letter dated 16.7.2007, intimated the NCTE, Western Zone with a copy to the College that the results of the B.Ed. course students have not been declared on the ground that against the 60 seats sanctioned by the NCTE, 100 students had been admitted to the B.Ed. course of the college for the year 2006-2007.
3. The College has filed W.P. No. 9516/2007 and five students who have taken the examination have filed W.P. No. 10675/2007 as a public interest litigation. The prayer in these two writ petitions is to direct the University to declare the results of the students of the B.Ed. course for the year 2006-07.
4. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior Counsel with Mr. Ajay Jain, appearing for the petitioner College in W.P. No. 9516/2007 and Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner students in W.P. No. 10675/2007 submitted that the University once having acknowledged that 100 students have been admitted to the B.Ed. course to the College for the academic session 2006-07 and once having issued 100 forms for the 100 students by letter dated 22.12.2006 and also having issued admit cards to the 100 students as well as the time table for the examination in May, 2007, is estopped from refusing to declare results of the students who have taken B.Ed. examination in June, 2007. Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Agrawal further submitted that the issue with regard to admissions beyond the intake capacity of 60 seats is only raised by NCTE and not by the Univeristy. Mr. Tiwari further submitted that after the Univeristy has raised this issue, the College will now restrict its admission to 60 students for the academic session 2007-08.
5. Mr. Agrawal cited the decision of Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. in which a student had been admitted in the Law College and had pursued the study of two years and University had also granted him the admission cards for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law and permitted him to appear in the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations and it was only at the stage of declaration of results of Pre-Law and Intermediate Law that the University had raised an objection saying that he was ineligible to be admitted to the Law Course and the Supreme Court has held on these facts that University was estopped from refusing to declare the results of the examination of the students or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. Mr. Agrawal submitted that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. (supra) equally applies to the facts of the case and the University in this case is also estopped from refusing to declare the results of the students.
6. Mr. Hitendra Singh, learned Counsel, appearing for the University, on the other hand, relied on the return filed in W.P. No.10675/2007 and submitted that the order granting provisional recognition by the NCTE to the College is clear that the College can give admission only to 60 students in the B.Ed. course. He submitted that the Board has no authority whatsoever to increase the number of seats of any particular College in B.Ed. course and therefore the Board could not have allotted 100 students for admission in the B.Ed course in the College. He submitted that it is only after inspection was carried out by Committee deputed by the University on 16.1.2007 that the University came to learn from the report submitted by the Committee that the College was not being run as per the norms prescribed by the NCTE and therefore the University sent a letter dated 18.5.2006 to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education seeking appropriate directions with regard to the College. He submitted that pending a final decision, the University permitted 100 students to take the examination and issued admit cards and other relevant documents for the examination to the 100 students because an affidavit had been submitted by the Principal of the College that the decision of the State Government will be binding on the College. He vehemently submitted that since the NCTE is the authority to determine the intake capacity of the College for B.Ed. course and had determined the intake capacity of the College as 60 students, the College could not have given admission to 100 students.
7. The only relief that is being claimed in the two writ petitions is a direction to University to declare the results of the 100 students who have been admitted to the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2006-07 in the College. Hence, we are not deciding the question whether the College at all could grant admission to more than 60 students during the academic year 2006-07 when the NCTE had limited the intake capacity of the College to only 60 students by order dated 4.4.1997.
8. The petitioners in para 5.3 and 5.4 of the W.P. No. 10675/2007 have made a clear assertion that applications for admissions to the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2006-07 were invited by the Board and the petitioners in the said writ petition had applied for admission to the B.Ed. course and the Board prepared a merit list of all the candidates who had made applications for admissions in B.Ed. course for 2006-07 and the Board allotted the petitioners for the B.Ed. course for 2006-07 in the College. Copies of the allotment letters issued by the Board have been annexed to the W.P. No. 10675/2007 as Annexure P/1 to P/5. The petitioners have also made an assertion in paragraph 5.5 of W.P. No. 10675/2007 that in the booklet issued by the Board containing rules and regulations of admissions, the total strength seats for B.Ed. course in the College was shown to be 100. Copy of the said booklet titled "B.Ed. 2006" issued by the Board shows that in Appendix-1 at Sr. No. 89 the total seats in B.Ed. course is shown against the College as 100. These assertions made in W.P. No.10675/2007 have not been denied in the return filed on behalf of the Board, respondent No. 2. All that has been stated in the return filed on behalf of the Board in W.P. No. 10675/2007 is that no relief has been claimed against the Board and that the only relief claimed in the writ petition is against the University for not declaring the results for B.Ed. examination taken by the petitioners.
9. Pursuant to the allotment made by the Board, 100 students were admitted to the B.Ed. course for the academic year 2006-07 in the College in September, 2006 and deposited the required fees with the College for the B.Ed. course and after the University was informed, the University by its letter dated 22.12.2006, copy of which has been annexed to W.P. No. 9516/2007, issued 100 forms to the College. Moreover, admit cards were issued by the University admitting the students of the College of the academic session 2006-07 to the B.Ed. examinations, 2007. It further appears from the reply filed on behalf of the University that on 16.1.2007 an Inspection Committee of the University had inspected the College and submitted a report dated 16.1.2007 inter alia that NCTE had permitted only 60 seats for admission to the B.Ed. course of the College and the College had admitted as many as 100 students. Despite the said report submitted way back on 16.1.2007, the University issued the admit cards in April 2007. The case of the University is that the admit cards were issued because the Principal of the College had furnished an affidavit that the decision taken by the State would be binding on the College.
10. We fail to appreciate how at this stage the University could refuse to declare the results of the examination of the students only on the ground that the Principal had filed an affidavit that the final decision taken by the authority will be binding on the College. The facts discussed above would show that the Board which had invited the applications for admission to the Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh, had invited the applications to the College and allotted 100 students for admission in the B.Ed. course of the College. The 100 students who had applied pursuant to the brochure published by the Board known as "B.Ed. 2006", were given to understand that there were 100 seats in the B.Ed. course in the College to which they have been allotted. The 100 students who were allotted to the College had no knowledge whatsoever that the intake capacity of the College was limited to only 60 seats by the NCTE. These 100 students who were issued with forms by the University through the College for the B.Ed. examination, 2007 applied for the examination and were issued with admit cards to take the examination. These students completed almost a whole year of B.Ed. course 2006-2007, prepared for the B.Ed. examination and finally took the B.Ed. examination in June, 2007. Having gone through all these exercises, the University cannot now turn round and say that it will not publish the results of the 100 students because the intake capacity of the College to which they were admitted was 60 as fixed by the NCTE because it is not the case of the University that the 100 students who were admitted to the College had full knowledge of the limited capacity of the College to admit 60 students and yet had taken admissions to the B.Ed course of the College at their own risk.
11. In Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court applied the principle of 'estoppel' and held that the Berhampur University having accepted the admission of the student to Pre-Law and Intermediate Law and having issued admit cards for Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations and having permitted the student to appear in the said examinations could not at a later stage refuse to declare the results of the student on the ground that he was ineligible to be admitted to the Law course. The Supreme Court held that University was clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the examination taken by the student or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. Applying this principle of estoppel to the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the University having issued 100 forms in December, 2006 to the College and having accepted the forms of the students and issued admit cards to them was estopped from refusing to declare the results of the students of the B.Ed. examination, 2007 taken by the students.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the University to declare the results of the students who had taken the B.Ed. Examination, 2007 on the basis of admit card issued to them by the University. We however also direct that the College henceforth for the academic session 2007 onwards will not admit students beyond the intake capacity of 60 seats so long as the NCTE has not increased the intake capacity.
13. The writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.